Grace & Knowledge

Posted By Brett on July 29, 2010

Sometimes I think the way we do church is kind of like a divine gossip column. We go to listen to sermons. Why? Hopefully the answer is, we go to listen in the hopes that the preacher may accurately proclaim God’s word to us. If that is the case, the next question is why? Why do you want to hear God’s word? Is this the same reason that you pick up people magazine at the supermarket? You just like hearing what Brittney Spears is up to and what Bradjolina are saying. If I ask, “What are you going to do with that information?” your response is going to be “nothing.” “I’m not going to change my life or anything, I’m just curious what the rich and famous are saying.” That ought not be how we approach God. We had better not be listening to sermons as some kind of divine gossip column where we can peak into the life of God but never be effected.

Category: Living | No Comments »
Tags: Gossip, Sermon, Word of God

Posted By Brett on July 26, 2010

This week I happened across an atheist forum where they happened to be discussing a video reenactment of “Letter from Hell.” The comments were conflicting. On one hand there were comments that indicated that it was a scary and horrible thing:

“This video “A Letter From Hell” is a truly frightening, scare-the-kids-into-believing ‘message’. A warning: It will both anger and sicken you.”

“But seriously, that’s got to be the sickest, most vile, disgusting, shameless attempt to manipulate children I’ve ever seen. How can anyone think that would be a good thing to show to kids?”

“That really would be child abuse to show that to a child. Disgusting.”

On the other hand there were comments that mocked it as childish and not scary in the least.

“THAT was supposed to be terrifying? Really? I’ve had sandwiches more terrifying than that!”

“I’m guessing this is supposed to be aimed at young adults old enough to drink and drive, which would make them what, about 17 or 18? Are they telling me that a modern seventeen year old would find this even remotely scary? A seventeen year old who, in all probability, would have been watching Terminator films at twelve, playing Resident Evil and listening to thrash house goth metal or whatever passes for music among the young and disaffected these days?”

“Christian kids must be really immature. I’ve sent this around the world for the enjoyment of others. Would this have scared me? WAHAHAHAHAHAH! Yeah, right!”

Well, which one is it?

There was a third group that basically bashed the Christian God as an unloving fear-monger who sends people to hell for not worshiping him. For the most part the responses were just an emotional spewing that had all the appearances of teenagers rebelling against their past just because it is a popular thing to do. No substance. There was no demonstration that they actually understood what they were mocking. There was no real interaction with answers that have been given to these objections for centuries. Just a hormone-laden reaction that exalts in rebelling. Still, there is something in here to which they are reacting that needs to be addressed.

I was wondering as I read those comments, “Do they also think it is fear-mongering to tell your children not to stick knives in the electrical outlets because they might get electrocuted?” Do they consider it child abuse to tell your children not to go into the street or they could get hit by a car? Warning people about real dangers is not fear-mongering, it is what any loving person would do. If you know about such things and do not warn people, that is neglect and abusive. It is the parents that do not so instruct their children that are thrown into jail for neglect.

Rom 1:14-15 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. [15] So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

We are under obligation to others to share the gospel. Despite what bitter atheists may say, we are guilty of spiritual neglect and abuse if we do not say something.

Category: Apologetics, Evangelism | No Comments »
Tags: Atheism, Evangelism, Letter from hell

Posted By Brett on July 22, 2010

Our enemies try to attack us by making us do what comes natural. “Do what feel right.” “If it feels so good it can’t be bad.” Our nature is evil, so if the enemy can get us to do what comes naturally, he has already won.

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also can you do good who are accustom to doing evil.

Romans 3:9-13 No one is righteous, no, not one; no one understands no one seeks for God.

Isa 53:6 We all like sheep have gone astray; we have turned – every one – to his own way.

Eph 2:3 [We] were, by nature, children of wrath like the rest of mankind.

Our enemies strategy is to get us to follow our impulses and do what comes naturally to us. So they will try to appeal to our fleshly desires. Sin usually has a certain attraction to it. If sin were presented in all its vile filthiness, we would not be attracted to it. But it tries to hide its true nature. Proverbs 5:3 says:

Further in chapter 23 verse 31 it says:

Category: Ecclesiology, Living, Sermon Excerpt, Theology | 4 Comments »
Tags: Church, mi, Spiritual Warfare

Posted By Brett on July 19, 2010

The church militant is all the believers currently on earth. “Militant” does not refer to aggressive or hard-line people. It does not refer to some extreme kind of Christian in the same way the media uses the term “Islamic militants.” Rather, you and I are still engaged in battle. We still fight the good fight. But we struggle, not against flesh and blood, “but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” We are indeed engaged in battle, but it is a spiritual war.

Ephesians 6:12 says that we wrestle not against flesh and blood. I think this is where the church has gone so horribly wrong in events like the Crusades. It is complex I know, but at least this much we can say, Christianity does not spread by sword. The old proverb is still true, “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” Christianity comes by way of the mind. Repentance means change of mind. Expansion of territory in the kingdom of God come not in physical territory with physical weapons, but when the hearts and mind of people are captured by Christ and he becomes their all consuming passion. Coercion of any kind – whether physical threats, empty promises or the glitz of entertainment – will not make a man a Christian. Only the pure preaching of the gospel can give new life to a man.

Category: Ecclesiology, Sermon Excerpt, Theology | No Comments »
Tags: Church, Grace Baptist, Militant

Posted By Brett on July 14, 2010

Matthew 7:16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

This is just a sampling of the passages that speak to this issue. Do you get the feeling that Jesus is trying to convey a point here? In the kingdom of God, in the church, sitting in pews right along with everyone else will be false professors. Some of them may boast that they cast out demons and prophecy in his name, but God never knew them. At the end of of the age there will be a gathering and a sorting. The wheat will be separated from the tares, the sheep will be separated from the goats, the good fish will be separated from the bad fish, the foolish virgins will be left out, the good steward will be given more, and the wicked steward will be cast into the outer darkness, the wheat will be separated from the chaff, the fruit bearing trees will be separated from the non-fruitful trees.
And in each of these instances, there will be blessings and punishment. The unquenchable fire, the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, that is the end of those who are part of the visible church but who are not part of the invisible church.
Dear church attender, I urge you not to look to your right or to your left. I urge you to look at yourself. You may not make it. You may be deceiving yourself. You may have come to church all your life and you know the stories, and you tithe, and you serve on every committee there is, but if you have not come to the point of repenting of your sins and resting in Jesus alone for the salvation of your sins, then you are not saved.
Do not disconnect yourself from these passages. This is not about some group of people in 1st century Palestine. Jesus spoke about you. You are in these verses. It may seem a strange thing that you were in the mind of God when these verses were penned, but it is true. The only question is which group do you belong to? Are you the wheat or are you the tare that will be thrown into the fire? Are you the wheat or the chaff that will be burned?

Category: Ecclesiology, Sermon Excerpt, Theology | No Comments »
Tags: Church, Invisible, Visible, Warnings

Posted By Brett on June 29, 2010

There are two streams of attacks against Christianity that seem to be in conflict with one another. On the one hand we have the problem of pain. This has been described as the most difficult problem that Christianity faces. Example after example of horrendous evils are marshaled forth as evidence against God’s existence.

On the other side of the coin there are attacks against the doctrine of Christ’s penal-substitutionary atonement. People describe this blood atonement as “barbaric” or “child abuse” or as Kant stated “morally debilitating.” Princeton Seminary’s George Hunsinger rightly observes that “The blood of Christ is repugnant to the Gentile mind, whether ancient or modern. This mind would prevail were it not continually disrupted by grace.”

Thus one stream of criticism faults God for not doing enough to solve the problem of pain while the other attacks God for going too far in the atonement. One stream attacks God for not taking sin seriously enough and the other faults him for taking it too seriously. These two streams collide together, canceling the force of one another creating a beautiful, calm lake.

Category: Apologetics | 2 Comments »
Tags: atonement, Theodicy

Posted By Brett on June 21, 2010

But where knowable truth is denied, ambition suffocates. Meandering replaces meaning, confusion trumps conviction, ambivalence swallows aspiration. We become living symptoms of the last days, “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim 3:7). (Dave Harvey, http://theresurgence.com/ambition_in_a_postmodern_world)

Individualism once allied with a societal assumption of objective truth and eternal verities could generate at least some men and women of courage, honor, vision; individualism allied with philosophical pluralism and the scarcely qualified relativism of post-modernity generates ‘a world without heroes.’ (D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God)

Category: Living | Comments Off
Tags: Ambition, Postmodern, Truth

Posted By Brett on June 14, 2010

It will probably be November 2010 before I finish my review of the November 2009 issue of the Watchtower. This post is a continuation of my interaction on their treatment of the Trinity. The previous posts on the Trinity are here:

Introduction

Church Fathers On the Trinity

Misunderstanding the Trinity

Anti-Trinitarian Verses

Compare these Bible verses: Matthew 26:39; John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 28;
Colossians 1:15, 16
Following are the verses that the Watchtower lists under their “Compare these Bible verses” section.

In many of these instances it would be helpful if they were to explain why they think a verse causes trouble to the doctrine of the Trinity. Based on past conversations with them, my guess is that because Jesus prayed to the Father they think that he is not the same as the Father. But we agree. The Father and the Son are two distinct persons so they can talk to each other, love each other, send each other, etc. Two persons in one God. No analogy is perfect, but we can see clear distinctions between the past, present, and future. They are all part of the one time continuum. There are not three time continuums, only one. But the present is not the past and the past is not the future. Water has also been used to describe the Trinity. There can be liquid water, water vapor, and ice. All three are 100% water, yet there are clear distinctions between them. When talking about water or time or space (whatever analogy you want to use) we are speaking of essence or ontology. But water can subsist in three forms. When we speak of God we speak of his essence, yet God subsists in three persons. Understanding this is essential to understand what the doctrine of the Trinity is. If you do not understand these distinctions, then you have no right to offer a rebuttal. We have no problem when one person of the Trinity speaks to another person of the Trinity.

It is the phrase “the Father is greater than I” that is key here. The reasoning is, if the Son is God, and nothing is greater than God, then the statement that the Father is greater doesn’t make any sense. Matthew 20:25 says, “But Jesus called them to Himself and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.’” Does this mean that these “great” ones were a different class of beings? There are us normal humans then there are these “great men” who are a different class of beings. Obviously not. When Jesus says that the Father is greater, it should be understood in terms of authority as is clear in Matthew 20:25.

The same problem occurs here. The church has always held that God the Son is subservient to God the Father. The existence of authority structures does not imply ontological inferiority.

This is a passage that is actually strong support for the deity of Christ. The reason that Jehovah Witnesses use it is because of the term “firstborn.” They suggest that this means that the Son was created and therefore can’t be God. This, however, is a misunderstanding. For the sake of argument, let us take “firstborn” in a wooden literal sense. To be born, there must be a mother and a father. They need to be intimate and so conceive a child. This child is of the same nature as the parents. God to not bear lamas. Is this what the Jehovah Witnesses want to suggest? Are we to take this term in its normal literal sense? Since the Jehovah Witnesses affirm that God the Father is the father, then there would also have to be a divine Mother. And when she conceived she bore a divine Son. They would never affirm this and so we can safely dismiss this as a possibility as well as dismiss any insistence they have to a “literal” reading since this is where it leads.
But if we are to take it in a figurative sense, what figure shall we assign to it? The Jehovah Witnesses would suggest that Jesus was the archangel Michael, and that God they Father does not have a significant other, and that Jesus being His Son does not mean that Jesus is divine. Instead they suggest that “firstborn” should mean “first created” and that is where the similarities with its normal usage end. But where in scripture do we see “firstborn” ever used in that sense? No where do you see “firstborn” mean “the chronologically first created thing of its kind that is of a different nature from its creator.” That understanding will not be found in scripture.
Instead, “firstborn” should be understood as “preeminent.” In Deuteronomy 21 God says:

Here we see that the father was not to transfer the preeminent status that belonged to the firstborn to one who was not the firstborn. We see both uses of “firstborn” in this passage. We see this link once again in 1 Chronicles 26:10 “for though he was not the firstborn, his father made him chief.”
Thus in Exodus 4:22 God says, “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son.” Israel was not the first created nation. Rather Israel was the nation that God favored. Israel was, in God’s sight, the preeminent nation. Psalm 89 is about David (vs 20) and yet we see this declaration in v 27 “And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” David was not the firstborn of Jesse, in fact he was the last.” Yet God calls him “firstborn.” Neither was he the first king, he was the second or third (depending on if you count). The text itself explains the meaning of firstborn as the preeminent one.
In Jeremiah God says that Ephraim was his firstborn. But in what sense? Not chronologically. The answer is in Genesis 48.

17 When Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him, and he took his father’s hand to move it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. 18 And Joseph said to his father, “Not this way, my father; since this one is the firstborn, put your right hand on his head.” 19 But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great. Nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude of nations.”

Ephraim was the preeminent one, not the first chronologically. Thus when Colossians 1 says that Jesus was the firstborn, we should not understand that as the first created thing of a different nature from its creator (a meaning nowhere found in scripture) but rather as the preeminent one. This meaning is not only the consistent non-literal usage, but it is even applied in verse 18 “He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.” He was not the first one to die, nor was he the first one to be raised from the dead. But he is the preeminent one. He is the head, the source, the preeminent one. That is the proper meaning.

Category: Apologetics, Theology | Comments Off
Tags: Deity of Christ, God, Jehovah Witnesses, Myths, Trinity

Posted By Brett on June 7, 2010

Theodicy is a term that derives from two Greeks words “God” and “righteousness.” It is a discipline that seeks to provide an answer for the righteousness of God in light of all the evil in the world. David Hume framed perhaps the most famous formulation of the issue in his Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion:

“Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”

Perhaps the most popular theodicy is what is known as the free-will defense. It basically says that in order for free-will to exist there must be the possibility of evil. It is viewed that it is more important to have free will than it is to have a world without evil. Could God stop all the evil in the world? Yes, but to do so would remove free-will. As I said, this is perhaps the most popular theodicy.

I do not think that the free will defense is sustainable. It does not adequately answer the problem of evil. In the next post I will present what I think is a better defense, but the remainder of this post will be dedicated to showing why I think the free-will defense does not work.

First, this does nothing to address the problem of natural evils. That is to say, the free-will defense, by its very nature, can only provide and answer to evils where free will is in play. But what about hurricanes? What about earthquakes? What about floods and famines and disease and fire and cold and pestilence? Rocks do not have a free will. Mud does not have a free will. So why would God not stop a mudslide from taking out several homes in a town and crushing many families in their houses? What reason can be given? Water does not have a will to violate, so why does God not stop the tsunami as it is about to break onto the shore? Why would God allow drought and starvation when all he has to do is send rain? These are real questions that we should not hide from. They are real questions that affect real people. The free-will defense has no answer.

Second, even with the evils that do involve free wills, why does God not mitigate the extent of it? C.S. Lewis in his book The Problem of Pain says:

We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults.

Lewis thinks that such a world, if taken to its final state, involves a violation of the will. I disagree. We don’t have to carry it to an extreme case in order to make this a better world. Lewis goes on to ask when we should stop. To be consistent we would have to eliminate even evil thoughts and to do this is to remove free will. But there is no need to go that far. We can conceive of a world with far less pain and evil just by taking some of the steps that he suggests (a wooden beam becomes soft as grass when used as a weapon). The criminal still has evil thoughts, he can still act out on his evil thoughts. But God can limit the painful results of these evil actions. Indeed, just taking away pain in the first place would be a good step. So even with evils committed by free-will agents, the free-will defense fails to account for the intensity of suffering.

Third, from a Christian point of view, free-will does not necessitate the existence of evil. In fact scripture describes the should that sins as enslaved. Ironically the more evil there is, the less freedom there is. At the opposite end of the spectrum we have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit who are the most free beings that exist, yet there is never even a possibility of sin in God. The tree persons of the Trinity are stunning examples of how evil is not necessary for free will to exist. Moreover, traditional Christianity believes that in heaven there will be no more sin. When one is in heaven one is more free than he has ever been, and yet there will be no sin. This strikes at the very heart of the free-will defense. It appears that there is no necessary connection between genuine free will and the existence of evil.

Fourth, in many cases there is more than one will involved in an evil event. If the whole purpose in allowing evil is to uphold someone’s free will, what happens if there are opposing wills? For every thief that wants to steal there is a corresponding victim that does not want to be stolen from. For every murderer who wants to kill, there is a corresponding victim who does not want to be killed. For every rapist who wants to violate some young girl, there is a young girl who desires not to be violated. In all these events (and many more) there will be someone who gets there way and someone whose will is violated. If someone’s will is going to be violated, why does God uphold the will of the rapist and not the will if the young girl? Can any reasonable answer be given?

Fifth, it does not seem to follow that free-will is always the most ethical virtue to uphold. There are times when a child is running into the street that it is best if we pull them to safety – even if they object. We consider their life to be more important than their desires at that point. In fact all commands to reduce suffering and crime in this world are nonsensical if the highest good is to uphold free will. Why should police stop thieves and wife beaters if the greater good is to let the criminal exercise his free will?

These seem to me the most formidable objections to the free-will defense. This is not to deny the place of free-will within a larger theodicy. It is simply to point out that the free-will defense as a stand alone defense is not adequate.

Category: Apologetics, Theodicy | Comments Off
Tags: Evil, Free Will, God, Theodicy

Posted By Brett on June 1, 2010

“Therefore, in reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us, that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator. If we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we would avoid offering insult to him, not to reject or condemn truth wherever it appears.” (John Calvin, Institutes 2.2.15)

I’ll admit that I am a theological stickler. I comb over concepts with a fine-toothed comb. However, I am also a strong believer in a liberal education. Liberal here should be read as generous. We should read widely which means that we read from those we disagree with. Here is where I am sometimes conflicted. I am willing to read widely, but not charitably. That is a mistake. As Calvin points out above, all truth is God’s truth and he causes the rain to fall on the just and the wicked alike. God’s common grace grants people (Christian or not) insight into many things. Calvin continues:

Shall we say that the philosophers, in their exquisite researches and skillful description of nature, were blind? Shall we deny the possession of intellect to those who drew up rules for discourse, and taught us to speak in accordance with reason? Shall we say that those who, by the cultivation of the medical art, expended their industry in our behalf were only raving? What shall we say of the mathematical sciences? Shall we deem them to be the dreams of madmen? Nay, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without the highest admiration; an admiration which their excellence will not allow us to withhold. But shall we deem anything to be noble and praiseworthy, without tracing it to the hand of God? (Ibid).

We should read widely but we should also read charitably. To do otherwise is to risk insulting God by denying a truth that he revealed through someone else. We should read with a view to learn from anyone as God can speak through anyone. If he spoke through a donkey to Balaam and expected Balaam to listen, so too should we be willing to listen and humbly learn from others that we view as dumb animals. We ought not read with a view to find something wrong in what people say. We ought not overlook it if they do speak erroneously since our goal is truth. But if we enter into our reading too biased against the author then we are likely to miss some truth that God has placed in them. A biased reading is a belittling of God since it implies that God cannot speak through anyone except those with whom you agree.

We all read those with whom we already agree. But rare is the person who will actually take the time to read an author they disagree with. More rare still is the person who does so charitably. This is a huge part of why the church (and the world) is so divided. There will still be very real differences that we need to work through, but reading charitably does wonders in breaking down the wall of hostility that impedes healing these divisions.

Category: Living | Comments Off
Tags: Books, Calvin, Charity, Common Grace, Humility